Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Federal and state court records lookup for due-diligence and background checks.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceB
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusion between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (search_court_records), which is consistent and descriptive.

Tool Count1/5

A legal server with only one tool is severely underscoped for a domain that typically requires multiple operations (e.g., retrieving case details, documents, different search filters).

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is extremely incomplete. There are no tools for updating records, retrieving specific case entities, or handling different query types beyond a basic search.

Available Tools

1 tool
search_court_recordsA
Read-only
Inspect

Search public court records database by individual name, case number, or state jurisdiction. Returns case details including parties involved, case type (civil/criminal), filing date, judgment, and docket number. Use for background checks, legal research, or case tracking. Limited to public records.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFull name or partial name of person involved in case (e.g. 'John Smith', 'Jane Doe')
stateNoU.S. state or jurisdiction for search (e.g. 'CA', 'NY', 'Texas')
case_numberNoCase identifier/docket number if known (e.g. '2023-CV-001234')
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description confirms read-only search and adds 'Limited to public records.' Does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise but all sentences add value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description explains return values. With 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is complete enough for this read-only tool with optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches public court records by name, case number, or state, and lists return fields (parties, case type, filing date, judgment, docket number). It distinguishes from no siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for background checks, legal research, or case tracking.' No mention of when not to use or alternatives, but no siblings exist to differentiate from.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources